Connect with us

Published

on

Welcome to our first team-by-team MLB prospect rankings big board update. The top 10 prospects for all 30 teams are updated below for where they stand entering May.

What has changed since our initial offseason list?

Below you will find the rankings for your favorite team, along with what to know for the month ahead, and all 30 of these lists will continue to be updated regularly throughout the 2025 season.

MLB prospect coverage: Top 100 | 101-200 | Farm system rankings

Jump to team:

American League
ATH | BAL | BOS | CHW | CLE
DET | HOU | KC | LAA | MIN
NYY | SEA | TB | TEX | TOR

National League
ARI | ATL | CHC | CIN | COL
LAD | MIA | MIL | NYM | PHI
PIT | SD | SF | STL | WSH

AL East

Preseason system ranking: 14th ($207 million)

What to know: Keep an eye on risers such as RHP Braxton Bragg, RHP Levi Wells and C/1B/OF Ethan Anderson, who were all close to making the list. RHP Keeler Morfe and CF Austin Overn are exciting tools types who need some refinement but could get on the list by the end of the season. The early returns on Honeycutt are better than I expected, so his rise could continue.


Preseason system ranking: 4th ($278 million)

What to know: He’s about to graduate, but Campbell has made the offensive adjustments needed at the big league level so far, so I’d move him into the tier with Anthony and Mayer if I were to re-do the top 100 now; they’re all pretty tightly packed in those top three spots.

Behind those three emerging stars, there are a lot of arrow-up guys in the early going and good depth throughout the list, largely on the pitching side: Fitts, Valera, Early, Brandon Clarke and Payton Tolle have all impressed and I ran out of room to include them all.


Preseason system ranking: 21st ($166 million)

What to know: Jasson Dominguez has graduated, opening up the top spot on the list. Lombard will swing-and-miss in the zone a bit, but the rest of his game is above average across the board. I still don’t know what to do with Jones, who is showing a power-and-patience-and-athleticism combination that’s rare, but his in-zone miss could undermine the big tools; I don’t know what version of Joey Gallo he’ll look like when he gets to the big leagues. Warren, Rodriguez-Cruz and Schlitter are all variations of pitchers who excel at throwing multiple breaking pitches.


Preseason system ranking: 5th ($270 million)

What to know: This system is really deep with another roughly dozen players I could’ve snuck in the last spot: RHP Yoniel Curet, UT Mac Horvath, C Dom Keegan, CF Theo Gillen, RHP Jackson Baumeister, LHP Ian Seymour and a number of pitchers in need of one adjustment to jump onto the list. Simpson is a force of nature and now the world knows why I love watching him, but most of the rest of the guys on this list haven’t moved a ton lately.


Preseason system ranking: 24th ($151 million)

What to know: Early returns are positive on the Jays’ top three picks from the 2024 draft, all pitchers: Yesavage, Stephen and King. This list is mostly pitchers, with a little bit of everything from currently injured (Barriera, Tiedemann), to hasn’t debuted in 2025 yet (King, Rojas), to high probability back-end types with a shot for more (Yesavage, Bloss and Stephen). Martinez and Roden haven’t been great in 2025, so Nimmala carries a lot of the hopes of developing another standout offensive player from this system.

AL Central

Preseason system ranking: 2nd ($313 million)

What to know: Both Schultz and Smith are off to slower starts, but I’m not panicking yet. Taylor has built on his strong end to 2024 and is now a top 100 arm, and Pallette is now showing the promise he did in his best healthy days at Arkansas. Meidroth and Bonemer are both big arrow-up guys this spring, and Colson Montgomery is a big question.


Preseason system ranking: 11th ($213 million)

What to know: Not a ton of movement here just yet. Messick looks as if he’ll get a big league shot at some point this year to prove he’s a starter. Doughty is arrow-up since the draft due to his feel and off-speed stuff, with the velo the last part to hopefully join the profile soon. Kayfus is hitting well at Double-A but has little defensive value and fringy raw power.


Preseason system ranking: 3rd ($298 million)

What to know: Clark is off to a hot start with underlying metrics to match while Jobe still has plus stuff to the eye and in the data but just isn’t getting the whiffs you’d expect. Like the other top prep hitter in the 2024 draft (Konnor Griffin), Rainer is arrow-up in the early going, with underlying data matching the results and the rosiest amateur scouting reports, after a dozen games. Anderson is also taking a step forward this season. SS Trey Sweeney, LHP Brant Hurter and C Dillon Dingler have all graduated recently.


Preseason system ranking: 22nd ($163 million)

What to know: Wolters is still having some trouble finding the strike zone, but the raw stuff and athleticism is still there, so I want to stay on board a bit longer. Ricardo is a switch-hitting shortstop with power but was in the Dominican Summer League last year, so it’ll be a while. Cameron is a nice big league inventory starter that they’ll probably need at some point this year. And yes, Cags is still hitting well while he works to improve the finer points.


Preseason system ranking: 6th ($257 million)

What to know: Rodriguez is off to a slow start and Keaschall is closing in, but his lack of power and defensive value (which are Rodriguez’s strengths) hold him back. I picked Soto as a breakout for the end of my top 100 before the year and he has held up his end of the bargain. Hill is one of the top prep breakout arms from last year’s draft, delivering on his projectable frame in short order by sitting 94-98 mph.

AL West

Preseason system ranking: 23rd ($160 million)

What to know: Jacob Wilson graduated soon after the season started, paving the way for Kurtz to take the top spot just as he was promoted to the big leagues. Hoglund’s velo is up and he should be getting the call soon as well, now that he is looking again the way he did at his best at Ole Miss. I wasn’t that big on the Athletics’ draft last summer, but the early returns on Gage Jump and Tommy White, former LSU teammates, has been positive.


Preseason system ranking: 30th ($104 million)

What to know: Smith has continued to outperform his draft position and predraft scouting reports. Brito and Blubaugh have also continued to trend up on the pitching end. Jaworsky doesn’t have good surface numbers in his small sample so far this year, but the underlying metrics, his performance last season and his tools suggest he’s a real prospect.


Preseason system ranking: 28th ($129 million)

What to know: Dana’s fastball quality is still in question, and Klassen’s stuff is outstanding — with strike-throwing his biggest question entering the year. It has progressed, so he takes the top spot. Moore is having some in-zone miss issues at the same time that Guzman is tapping into his raw power at a new level, with underlying numbers to make it seem real. Cortez and Johnson are 2024 draftees who might both be in the big league pen for good later this year; also keep an eye on Samy Natera Jr. and Jose Fermin along those lines.


Preseason system ranking: 7th ($241 million)

What to know: Farmelo has returned from his torn ACL early in last season. I ranked him aggressively since the injury expecting him to hit the ground running when he returned. He hit a homer in his first game back earlier this week. This a deep, diverse group of position players and there will be a few busts, but these players should make up a good bit of the big league lineup a few years from now. Just beyond this list there are some intriguing arms, like the recently debuted Logan Evans and possible debut-to-come of Brandyn Garcia.


Preseason system ranking: 16th ($192 million)

What to know: Leiter, Rocker, and Rosario are jumbled together in the same tier now after Leiter returned to his Vanderbilt form this spring, Rocker started slow then had a shoulder issue, and Rosario is down for the year with elbow surgery. Scarborough is the main arrow-up guy here, with a mid-90s sinker and deadly sweeper combo after being a near-anonymous prep righty in the draft a few years ago. Dreiling gets the nod over Alejandro Osuna due to his raw power.

NL East

Preseason system ranking: 27th ($133 million)

What to know: RHP A.J. Smith-Shawver graduated, with a long list of pitchers and international signees lined up behind him; I’d expect a couple from that group to jump onto this list later in the year. Keep an eye on 3B David McCabe, who is having a renaissance at Double-A at age 25 and last year’s fourth-rounder LHP Herick Hernandez.


Preseason system ranking: 15th ($197 million)

What to know: The Robby Snelling resurgence is upon us. His velo on all three of his primary pitches (four-seam fastball, slurve, changeup) is up two ticks and the fastball and changeup have also added a nontrivial amount of movement. He’s also still throwing strikes at a high rate. Ramirez has been excellent so far and Mack, Acosta and Alderman are also all arrow-up in the early going.


Preseason system ranking: 9th ($222 million)

What to know: Sproat, Tong and McLean (along with graduated/injured RHP Christian Scott) could be ranked in any order and seem to be making the case to president of baseball operations David Stearns to stop handing out big money on the free agent starting pitching market for the foreseeable future. The bats aren’t bad either, as the system is stocked with infielders: Jacob Reimer, Marco Vargas and Daiverson Gutierrez just missed the list, and Elian Pena (and his highly anticipated pro debut) and Jeremy Rodriguez aren’t far behind.


Preseason system ranking: 17th ($188 million)

What to know: You could put Miller and Painter in either order; Painter has a higher upside but is also a pitcher and has had arm trouble. Crawford is still hitting the ball on the ground too much to reach his upside. Escobar and Abel have taken steps forward this year. Also of note: Tait has incredible raw power and Nori has been a bit better than I expected at draft time.


Preseason system ranking: 12th ($212 million)

What to know: Dylan Crews graduated from the top spot soon after the season started and that makes way for Dickerson (the Nats’ big overslot bonus in the 2024 draft) to sneak onto the list before his pro debut. Their top 2024 pick King just needs to chase fewer pitches out of the zone to become a clear top-100 prospect.

Susana was already the top pitching prospect in this system for me but could be on the verge of becoming one of the best in baseball, which would help soften the blow of hip surgery that has delayed Sykora’s 2025 debut.

NL Central

Preseason system ranking: 10th ($215 million)

What to know: I hedged a bit on Horton’s placement on the top 100 going into the season, unsure if his flagging stuff down the stretch was due to an injury that would be an issue in 2025. He looks back to his old self and should be a big league factor soon. Ballesteros and Mule are also off to nice starts but keep an eye on SS Cristian Hernandez. He was highly touted and started his career slowly, but might be turning a corner, just missing this list.


Preseason system ranking: 13th ($210 million)

What to know: Burns has been as advertised so far in pro ball, showing two plus-plus pitches in his fastball and slider; at this rate he’ll be a big league factor in the second half. Lowder has already debuted (currently on the IL) and Petty is looking crisp, knocking on the door at Triple-A as another potential big league starter.


Preseason system ranking: 8th ($225 million)

What to know: Made’s outstanding pro debut in the Dominican Summer League has held up in the early going as a 17-year-old in Single-A. He’s still showing above-average offensive upside and a clear fit somewhere in the infield. Misiorowski is showing some progress with strike throwing, Pena’s stateside debut is also going well, and Adams and Payne are both arrow-up position players; you might be noticing a trend with Milwaukee. There are a number of position players who just missed that could easily be listed: Josh Adamczewski, Tyler Black, Mike Boeve and Luis Lara.


Preseason system ranking: 20th ($179 million)

What to know: Chandler is carving up Triple-A and his velo is up 1.4 mph from last season. He ranked behind Roki Sasaki and Jackson Jobe among pitchers on the top 100 going into the season, but you could certainly argue Chandler is the top dog now given his continued progress while the other two have had slow starts in the big leagues. Chen is dealing and he has good feel and off-speed stuff, but his fastball velocity is still well below average.


Preseason system ranking: 19th ($184 million)

What to know: There has been some injury issues small (Hence, ribs), medium (Mathews, shoulder after losing the strike zone), and big (Hjerpe, elbow surgery) on this list since the season started. Michael McGreevy was the first cut from the list and profiles as big league pitching inventory. The rest of the list consists of position players who have largely been solid.

NL West

Preseason system ranking: 25th ($139 million)

What to know: Caldwell and Waldschmidt are both arrow-up relative to expectations in their first full season, but also keep an eye on another 2024 draft pick: RHP Daniel Eagen, who just missed this list. The third-rounder out of Presbyterian College is dealing in High-A and might be in line for a promotion in short order.


Preseason system ranking: 18th ($185 million)

What to know: Dollander is in the big leagues and pitching well, despite losing some lift to his fastball, because he’s throwing almost two ticks harder. Hill has turned a corner and I like what I’ve seen so far from Thomas. He got a “poor man’s Cody Bellinger” comp from one team I spoke with before the 2024 draft and he’s off to a hot start.


Preseason system ranking: 1st ($420 million)

What to know: George’s power has spiked this year, addressing the major concern on his profile, so he’s now tracking like a potential everyday player. Some other risers who didn’t make the list because the Dodgers’ system is loaded, all pitchers: righties Christian Zazueta, Eriq Swan, and Patrick Copen.


Preseason system ranking: 26th ($135 million)

What to know: De Vries is the same age as the top high school players in this year’s MLB draft. He not only would be the No. 1 overall pick by a mile, but he’d be one of the best No. 1 picks in recent memory.

Four of these 10 haven’t played yet this year, so there hasn’t been a ton of movement in this list, but Balzer is the big riser. He has plus stuff with some relief risk as a near-anonymous signee born in Japan.


Preseason system ranking: 29th ($109 million)

What to know: This system hangs largely on near big league ready pitching and higher variance position players with some ceiling. De Jesus and Level are two exciting talents who will get going later when short-season leagues begin. Jordan was last year’s electric tools acquisition via an overslot deal in the draft, and Davidson was the underappreciated prospect who had his breakthrough last season continuing into this season.

Continue Reading

Sports

Jets stick up for Hellebuyck after latest playoff dud

Published

on

By

Jets stick up for Hellebuyck after latest playoff dud

The Winnipeg Jets defended star goaltender Connor Hellebuyck after another disastrous performance on the road, a 5-2 loss Friday night in which the St. Louis Blues forced Game 7 in their Stanley Cup Playoff opening-round series.

Hellebuyck was pulled after the second period in favor of backup Eric Comrie, the third straight game in St. Louis that he failed to finish. Hellebuyck surrendered five goals on 23 shots, including four goals on eight shots during a 5-minute, 23-second stretch in the second period that cost the Jets the game.

As has become tradition in this series, Blues fans mockingly chanted, “We want Connor!” after Hellebuyck left the game and the Jets’ bench.

“This isn’t about Connor,” Winnipeg coach Scott Arniel said. “Tonight was not about Connor. Tonight, we imploded in front of him. Now, it’s a one-game showdown. It’s our goalie against their goalie, our best players against their best, our grinders against theirs. I have a lot of confidence in our [entire] group — not just Helly.”

Hellebuyck won the Vezina Trophy last season as the NHL’s top goaltender, as voted on by the league’s general managers. He also won the award in 2019-20 and is the favorite to win it for a third time this season. Hellebuyck is also a finalist for the 2024-25 Hart Trophy, awarded to the NHL’s most valuable player. He was the starting goaltender for Team USA at the 4 Nations Face-Off tournament in February and was expected to do the same for the U.S. in next year’s Winter Olympics in Italy.

But his recent performances in the Stanley Cup playoffs have been the antithesis of that success.

Over the past three postseasons, two of which the Jets lost in the first round in just five games, Hellebuyck is 5-11 with an .860 save percentage.

Hellebuyck failed to finish any of the three games played in St. Louis during the series. He was pulled with 9:28 left in regulation in Game 3, having given up six goals on 25 shots. In Game 4, Hellebuyck was pulled 2:01 into the third period after surrendering five goals on 18 shots. Hellebuyck has allowed four or more goals in seven straight road playoff games, tying the second-longest streak in Stanley Cup playoff history

At home against the Blues in this series, it has been a different story, if not necessarily a great one: Hellebuyck is 3-0 in Winnipeg, with an .879 save percentage and a 2.33 goals-against average.

His home numbers in the regular season: 27-3-3 with a .938 save percentage and a 1.63 goals-against average in 33 games. His road numbers: 20-9-0 with a .911 save percentage and a 2.43 goals-against average. Hellebuyck was not pulled in his 63 appearances in the regular season.

Even with Hellebuyck’s multiple seasons of playoff struggles, his team exonerated him from blame for the Game 6 loss.

“I don’t need to talk about Bucky,” said forward Nikolaj Ehlers, who returned to the lineup for the first time since April 12 after a foot injury. “He’s been unbelievable for us all year. He’s continued to do that. We’ve got to be better.”

Said forward Cole Perfetti, who had a goal in Game 6: “Things got carried away. We lost our game for four or five minutes. They got a couple pucks through, and they found the back of the net. It’s frustrating. Happened a couple of times now this series where we fell asleep and they jumped on us.”

Perfetti said the Jets have rebounded from losses like this — one reason their confidence isn’t shaken ahead of Sunday’s Game 7.

“We had a loss like that in Game 4 [in St. Louis],” he said. “We went home and got the job done in Game 5. We’ve got the home ice. We’ve got the fans behind us and our barn rocking.”

Continue Reading

Sports

College football Luck Index 2025: Who needs luck on their side next season?

Published

on

By

College football Luck Index 2025: Who needs luck on their side next season?

Almost no word in the English language makes a college football fan more defensive than the L-word: luck.

We weren’t lucky to have a great turnover margin — our coaches are just really good at emphasizing ball security! We’re tougher than everyone else — that’s why we recovered all those fumbles!

We weren’t lucky to win all those close games — we’re clutch! Our coaches know how to press all the right buttons! Our quarterback is a cool customer!

We weren’t lucky to have fewer injuries than everyone else — our strength-and-conditioning coach is the best in America! And again: We’re just tougher!

As loath as we may be to admit it, a large percentage of a given college football season — with its small overall sample of games — is determined by the bounce of a pointy ball, the bend of a ligament and the whims of fate. Certain teams will end up with an unsustainably good turnover margin that turns on them the next year. Certain teams (often the same ones) will enjoy a great run of close-game fortune based on some combination of great coaching, sturdy quarterback play, timely special teams contributions … and massive amounts of unsustainable randomness. Certain teams will keep their starting lineups mostly intact for 12 or more games while another is watching its depth chart change dramatically on a week-to-week basis.

As we prepare for the 2025 college football season, it’s worth stepping back and looking at who did, and didn’t, get the bounces in 2024. Just because Lady Luck was (or wasn’t) on your side one year, doesn’t automatically mean your fortunes will flip the next, but that’s often how these things go. Be it turnovers, close-game fortune or injuries, let’s talk about the teams that were dealt the best and worst hands last fall.

Jump to a section:
Turnover luck | Close games luck
Injuries and general shuffling | Turnaround candidates

Turnover luck

In last year’s ACC championship game, Clemson bolted to a 24-7 halftime lead, then white-knuckled it to the finish. SMU came back to tie the score at 31 with only 16 seconds left, but Nolan Hauser‘s 56-yard field goal at the buzzer gave the Tigers a 34-31 victory and a spot in 2024’s College Football Playoff at Alabama’s expense.

In the first series of the game, Clemson’s T.J. Parker pulled a perfect sack-and-strip of SMU QB Kevin Jennings, forcing and falling on a loose ball at the SMU 33-yard line. Clemson scored two plays later to take a 7-0 lead. Late in the first quarter, Khalil Barnes picked off a Jennings pass near midfield, ending what could have become a scoring threat with one more first down. A few minutes later, Clemson’s Cade Klubnik fumbled at the end of a 14-yard gain, but tight end Jake Briningstool recovered it at midfield, preventing another potential scoring threat from developing. (Klubnik fumbled seven times in the 2024 season but lost only one of them.)

Early in the third quarter, after SMU cut Clemson’s lead to 24-14, David Eziomume fumbled the ensuing kickoff at the Clemson 6, but teammate Keith Adams Jr. recovered it right before two SMU players pounced.

Over 60 minutes, both teams fumbled twice, and Clemson defended (intercepted or broke up) eight passes to SMU’s seven. On average, 50% of fumbles are lost and about 21% of passes defended become INTs, so Clemson’s expected turnover margin in this game was plus-0.2 (because of the extra pass defended). The Tigers’ actual turnover margin was plus-2, a difference of 1.8 turnovers in a game they barely won.

Clemson was obviously a solid team in 2024, but the Tigers probably wouldn’t have reached the CFP without turnovers luck. For the season, they fumbled 16 times but lost only three, and comparing their expected (based on the averages above) and actual turnover margins, almost no one benefited more from the randomness of a bouncing ball.

It probably isn’t a surprise to see that, of last year’s 12 playoff teams, eight benefited from positive turnovers luck, and six were at plus-3.3 or higher. You’ve got to be lucky and good to win, right?

You aren’t often lucky for two straight years, though. It might be noteworthy to point out that, of the teams in Mark Schlabach’s Way-Too-Early 2025 rankings, five were in the top 20 in terms of turnovers luck: No. 5 Georgia, No. 7 Clemson, No. 9 BYU, No. 11 Iowa State and No. 17 Indiana (plus two others from his Teams Also Considered list: Army and Baylor).

It’s also noteworthy to point out that three teams on Schlabach’s list — No. 6 Oregon, No. 8 LSU and No. 15 SMU — ranked in the triple-digits in terms of turnovers luck. Oregon started the season 13-0 without the benefit of bounces. For that matter, Auburn, a team on the Also Considered list, ranked 125th in turnovers luck in a season that saw the Tigers go just 1-3 in one-score finishes. There might not have been a more what-could-have-been team in the country than Hugh Freeze’s Tigers.


Close games

One of my favorite tools in my statistical toolbox is what I call postgame win expectancy. The idea is to take all of a game’s key, predictive stats — all the things that end up feeding into my SP+ rankings — and basically toss them into the air and say, “With these stats, you could have expected to win this game X% of the time.”

Alabama‘s 40-35 loss to Vanderbilt on Oct. 5 was one of the most impactful results of the CFP race. It was also one of the least likely results of the season in terms of postgame win expectancy. Bama averaged 8.8 yards per play to Vandy’s 5.6, generated a 56% success rate* to Vandy’s 43% and scored touchdowns on all four of its trips into the red zone. It’s really hard to lose when you do all of that — in fact, the Crimson Tide’s postgame win expectancy was a whopping 98.5%. (You can see all postgame win expectancy data here)

(* Success rate: how frequently an offense is gaining at least 50% of necessary yardage on first down, 70% on second and 100% on third and fourth. It is one of the more reliable and predictive stats you’ll find, and it’s a big part of SP+.)

Vandy managed to overcome these stats in part because of two of the most perfect bounces you’ll ever see. In the first, Jalen Milroe had a pass batted at the line, and it deflected high into the air and, eventually, into the arms of Randon Fontenette, who caught it on the run and raced 29 yards for a touchdown and an early 13-0 lead.

In the second half, with Bama driving to potentially take the lead, Miles Capers sacked Milroe and forced a fumble; the ball sat on the ground for what felt like an eternity before Yilanan Ouattara outwrestled a Bama lineman for it. Instead of trailing, Vandy took over near midfield and scored seven plays later. It took turnovers luck and unlikely key-play execution — despite a 43% success rate, Diego Pavia and the Commodores went 12-for-18 on third down and 1-for-1 on fourth — for Vandy to turn a 1.5% postgame win expectancy into a victory. It also wasn’t Alabama’s only incredibly unlikely loss: The Tide were at 87.8% to beat Michigan in the ReliaQuest Bowl but fell 19-13.

(Ole Miss can feel the Tide’s pain: The Rebels were at 76.0% postgame win expectancy against Kentucky and 73.7% against Florida. There was only a 6% chance that they would lose both games, and even going 1-1 would have likely landed them a CFP bid. They lost both.)

Adding up each game’s postgame win expectancy is a nice way of seeing how many games a team should have won on average. I call this a team’s second-order win total. Alabama was at 10.7 second-order wins but went 9-4. That was one of the biggest differences of the season. Somehow, however, Iron Bowl rival Auburn was even more unfortunate.

Based solely on stats, Arkansas State should have won about four games, and Auburn should have won about eight. Instead, the Red Wolves went 8-5 and the Tigers went 5-7.

Comparing win totals to these second-order wins is one of the surest ways of identifying potential turnaround stories for the following season. In 2023, 15 teams had second-order win totals at least one game higher than their actual win totals — meaning they suffered from poor close-game fortune. Ten of those 15 teams saw their win totals increase by at least two games in 2024, including East Carolina (from 2-10 to 8-5), TCU (5-7 to 9-4), Pitt (3-9 to 7-6), Boise State (8-6 to 12-2) and Louisiana (6-7 to 10-4). On average, these 15 teams improved by 1.9 wins.

On the flip side, 19 teams overachieved their second-order win totals by at least 1.0 wins in 2023. This list includes both of 2023’s national title game participants, Washington and Michigan. The Huskies and Wolverines sank from a combined 29-1 in 2023 to 14-12 in 2024, and it could have been even worse. Michigan overachieved again, going 8-5 despite a second-order win total of 6.0. Other 2023 overachievers weren’t so lucky. Oklahoma State (from 10-4 to 3-9), Wyoming (from 9-4 to 3-9), Northwestern (from 8-5 to 4-8) and NC State (from 9-4 to 6-7) all won more games than the stats expected in 2023, and all of them crumpled to some degree in 2024. On average, the 19 overachieving teams regressed by 1.9 wins last fall.

It’s worth keeping in mind that several teams in Schlabach’s Way-Too-Early Top 25 — including No. 6 Oregon, No. 8 LSU, No. 11 Iowa State, No. 13 Illinois and, yes, No. 21 Michigan — all exceeded statistical expectations in wins last season, as did Also Considered teams like Army, Duke, Missouri and Texas Tech. The fact that Oregon and LSU overachieved while suffering from poor turnovers luck is (admittedly) rather unlikely and paints a conflicting picture.

Meanwhile, one should note that three Way-Too-Early teams — No. 12 Alabama, No. 23 Miami and No. 25 Ole Miss (plus Washington and, of course, Auburn from the Also Considered list) — all lost more games than expected last season. With just a little bit of good fortune, they could prove to be awfully underrated.


Injuries and general shuffling

Injuries are hard to define in college football — coaches are frequently canny in the information they do and do not provide, and with so many teams in FBS, it’s impossible to derive accurate data regarding how many games were missed due to injury.

We can glean quite a bit from starting lineups, however. Teams with lineups that barely changed throughout the season were probably pretty happy with their overall results, while teams with ever-changing lineups likely succumbed to lots of losses. Below, I’ve ranked teams using a simple ratio: I compared (a) the number of players who either started every game or started all but one for a given team to (b) the number of players who started only one or two games, likely as a stopgap. If you had far more of the former, your team likely avoided major injury issues and, with a couple of major exceptions, thrived. If you had more of the latter, the negative effects were probably pretty obvious.

Despite the presence of 1-11 Purdue and 2-10 Kennesaw State near the top of the list — Purdue fielded one of the worst power conference teams in recent memory and barely could blame injury for its issues — you can still see a decent correlation between a positive ratio and positive results. The six teams with a ratio of at least 2.8 or above went a combined 62-22 in 2024, while the teams with a 0.5 ratio or worse went 31-56.

Seven of nine conference champions had a ratio of at least 1.3, and 11 of the 12 CFP teams were at 1.44 or higher (five were at 2.6 or higher). Indiana, the most shocking of CFP teams, was second on the list above; epic disappointments like Oklahoma and, especially, Florida State were near the bottom. (The fact that Georgia won the SEC and reached the CFP despite a pretty terrible injury ratio speaks volumes about the depth Kirby Smart has built in Athens. Of course, the Dawgs also enjoyed solid turnovers luck.)


Major turnaround candidates

It’s fair to use this information as a reason for skepticism about teams like Indiana (turnovers luck and injuries luck), Clemson (turnovers luck), Iowa State (close-games luck), Penn State (injuries luck) or Sam Houston (all of the above, plus a coaching change), but let’s end on an optimistic note instead. Here are five teams that could pretty easily enjoy a big turnaround if Lady Luck is a little kinder.

Auburn Tigers: Auburn enjoyed a better success rate than its opponents (44.7% to 38.5%) and made more big plays as well (8.9% of plays gained 20-plus yards versus 5.7% for opponents). That makes it awfully hard to lose! But the Tigers made exactly the mistake they couldn’t make and managed to lose games with 94%, 76% and 61% postgame win expectancy. There’s nothing saying this was all bad luck, but even with a modest turnaround in fortune, the Tigers will have a very high ceiling in 2025.

Florida Gators: The Gators improved from 41st to 20th in SP+ and from 5-7 to 8-5 overall despite starting three quarterbacks and 12 different DBs and ranking 132nd on the list above. That says pretty spectacular things about their overall upside, especially considering their improved experience levels on the O-line, in the secondary and the general optimism about sophomore quarterback DJ Lagway.

Florida Atlantic Owls: Only one team ranked 111th or worse in all three of the tables above — turnovers luck (111th), second-order win difference (121st) and injury ratio (131st). You could use this information to make the case that the Owls shouldn’t have fired head coach Tom Herman, or you could simply say that new head coach Zach Kittley is pretty well-positioned to get some bounces and hit the ground running.

Florida State Seminoles: There was evidently plenty of poor fortune to go around in the Sunshine State last season, and while Mike Norvell’s Seminoles suffered an epic hangover on the field, they also didn’t get a single bounce: They were 129th in turnovers luck, 99th in second-order win difference and 110th in injury ratio. Norvell has brought in new coordinators and plenty of new players, and the Noles are almost guaranteed to jump up from 2-10. With a little luck, that jump could be a pretty big one.

Utah Utes: Along with UCF, Utah was one of only two teams to start four different quarterbacks in 2024. The Utes were also among only four teams to start at least 11 different receivers or tight ends and among five teams to start at least nine defensive linemen. If you’re looking for an easy explanation for how they fell from 65th to 96th in offensive SP+ and from 8-5 to 5-7 overall, that’s pretty succinct and telling.

Continue Reading

Sports

Good Cheer rallies in slop to win Kentucky Oaks

Published

on

By

Good Cheer rallies in slop to win Kentucky Oaks

LOUISVILLE, Ky. — Unbeaten filly Good Cheer rallied on the outside through the slop to overtake Tenma by the final furlong and win the 151st Kentucky Oaks on Friday at Churchill Downs.

Louisville-born trainer Brad Cox watched the heavy 6-5 favorite cover 1 1/8 miles in 1:50.15 with Luis Saez aboard. Good Cheer paid $4.78, $3.62 and $3.02 for her seventh dominant victory.

The bay daughter of Megdalia d’Oro and Wedding Toast by Street entered the Oaks with a combined victory margin of more than 42 lengths, and on Friday, she added more distance to her resume with a stunning surge over a mushy track.

Cox, who grew up blocks from Churchill Downs, earned his third Oaks win and Saez his second.

Drexel Hill paid $21.02 and $11.76 for second while Bless the Broken was third and returned $4.78.

A thunderstorm that roared through about two hours before the scheduled post left the track soggy and sent many of the 100,910 fans seeking shelter at the track’s urging. The $1.5 million showcase for 3-year-old fillies was delayed by 10 minutes, and the conditions proved to be a minor nuisance for Good Cheer.

She was off the pace after starting from the No. 11 post but well within range of the leaders before charging forward through the final turns. Good Cheer was fourth entering the stretch and closed inside and into the lead, pulling away for her fourth win at Churchill Downs and second in the mud.

Continue Reading

Trending